VEHR v. USA, No. 1:2014cv00405 - Document 7 (Fed. Cl. 2014)

Court Description: UNREPORTED OPINION and ORDER granting 5 Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. No costs. Signed by Judge Charles F. Lettow. (dls) Copy to parties.

Download PDF

OffiEffiHruA!. l|n tbt @nitr! 9.tafts [,ourt of feleru[ @luimg No. l4-405C (Filed: August 25, 2014) (NOT TO BE PUBLISHED) ** *** *** ************** ******:i*'t*** FILED AUG 2 5 2014 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SKYE VEHR, Plaintiff, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant, ** * *** *** * *** * ** * *** **** ** * {.,i.* rr**{' Skye Vehr,pro se, Washington, D.C. Elizabeth Anne Speck, Trial Attomey, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. With her on the briefs were Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attomey General, Civil Division, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and Scott D. Austin, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washinglon, D.C. OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge. On May 1,2,2014, plaintiff, Skye Vehr, filed a complaint in this court. The govemment responded to this complaint with a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule l2(b)(l) ofthe Rules of the Court ofFederal Claims ("RCFC") and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pusuant to RCFC 12(bX6). Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss ("Mot. to Dismiss"), ECF No. 5. STANDARDS FOR DECISION The Tucker Act grants this court jurisdiction over monetary claims against the federal govemment "founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act ofCongress or any regulation of an executive departrnent, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort." 28 U.S.C. $ 1491(a)( 1). The Tucker Act is a waiver of sovereign immunity and enables a plaintiff to sue the United States for monetary damages in certain circumstances. united States v. Mitchell,463 U.S. 206,212 (1983). The Act, however, does not itself create a substantive right to monetary relief from this cowt. United States v. Testan,424 U.5.392,398 (1976); see also Martinez v. United States,333 F.3d 1295, 1302-03 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (en banc). "A substantive right must be found in some other source of law," Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 216, and the plaintiff must point to such a source that mandates payment from the United States for the injury suffered. Testan,424 U.S. at400' The "court must satisfy itselfthat it hasjurisdiction to hear and decide a case before proceeding to the merits." Hardie v. United States,367 F.3d 1288, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (intemal quotation marks omitted) (quoting PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chem. Co.,304 F 3d 1235, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). When considering a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court will "normally consider the facts alleged in the complaint as true and correct." Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. \erv.,846F.2d746,747 (Fed Cir' 1988) (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.5.232,236 (197 4)). The complaint "must be well-pleaded in that it must state the necessary elements of the plaintiffs claim, independent of any defense that may be interposed." Holley v. Ilnited States,124 F.3d 1462,1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The party seeking to establish the court's jurisdiction bears the burden ofproving it by a preponderance of the evidence. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of 1nd.,298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); Reynolds, 846 F .2d at 748. In construing pleadings filed by pro se plaintiffs, the court generally Estelle v holds them to "'less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. (qtoting Haines v. Kerner,404 U.S. 519, 520 (1912) (rcr Gamble,429 U.5.9'7 , 106 (1976) curiam) (intemal quotation marks omitted)). "This latitude, however, does not relieve apro se plaintiff from meeting jurisdictional requiremenlsJ Bernard v. United States,59 Fed. Cl. 497, 499 (2004),aff'd,98 Fed. Appx. 860 (Fed. Cir.2004);see also Henkev. UnitedStates,60F.3d 795,799 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Thus, evenasaprose plaintifl Ms. Vehr "bears the burden o1establishing the [c]ourt's jurisdiction by a preponderance ofthe evidence." Riles v. United States,93 Fed. Cl. 163, 165 (2010) (citingTaylor v. United States,303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. "' Cir.2002)). ANALYSIS Ms. Vehr's two-page complaint consists of brief descriptive phrases ofalleged misconduct by undisclosed individuals. It is devoid of any statutory citations. Because Ms. VehI identified "social Security" as the defendant and refers to a "payee" in her complaint, the court assumes that Ms. Vehr may, in part, be seeking monetary damages related to social security payments. This court, however, does not have jurisdiction over claims for social security benefits. See Marcus v. United States,909F.2d 1470, I471(Fed. Cir. 1990). Such claims can only be filed in federal district courts. Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. $$ 405(9), (h)). To the extent that Ms. Vehr is attempting to allege other violations of law, she has not stated sufficient facts with the requisite specificity to show that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over her complaint. See Holley, 124 F .3d at 1465; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ("To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to reliefthat is plausible on its face."' (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. 1'. Twombly,550 U.S. 544,570 (2007). CONCLUSION Ms. Vehr's complaint fails to state a claim over which the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the govemment's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED pursuant to RCFC 12(bX1), and the complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice. The clerk is directed to enterjudgment in accord with this disposition. No costs. It is so ORDERED. Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.